Fflaps wrote:
This really annoys me. First the Mail complains about hospitals being hotbeds of 'superbugs'. The NHS tackles this issue with new and more stringent hygiene procedures. Then the Mail complains that now you're more likely to catch something else because germs like E Coli are being 'ignored'. The NHS can't win.
I know our hospitals and the NHS aren't perfect but ffs, it riles me to read these moans about how horrendous and dirty and unhealthy our hospitals are, when in reality they're really not that bad compared to much of the world. 'Venture through the swinging doors' - ffs!!! The way the article makes it sound like you're taking your life in your hands every time you go to hospital - talk about hyperbole. Fine, if hospitals are so dangerous, next time you break a limb or collapse a lung, stay home, where of course there are no germs whatsoever, with some aspirin and an extra blanket then! See how quickly you get well, if at all.
And yeah - the aspirin advice - personally I'm allergic to aspirin so don't take it but while I know a small amount can be good for people whose blood is already prone to clotting, just taking heavy doses whether you need it or not is a recipe for stomach problems, at the very least.
I think it's the angle the story approaches it from which hacks me off. Rather than doing their usual thing five or so years ago or rooting around for a story where a someone in a hospital forgot to flush after taking a number one, they're taking this approach where dirty hospitals are already a presupposition for the sake of this story, automatically planting the seeds in their readership's minds through the assumption.
This is the thing about cleanliness - people DON'T NOTICE when it is clean. Of course in a hospital it's expected, but the same goes for anywhere else - a clean street, or park, or shop is the given. People don't remark on the cleanliness, because there's nothing there to remark about.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
